New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-08-12
NEW PUBLICATIONS.

sur PERSONAL MEMOIRS AND MILITARY HE.
TORY TOR on y Of Il THE TIE POTOMAC BY CAKswELL
Brew. Monsno Gci % ~ co.
IT,. antbor of this book was an officer on the sian
~ Msjor.Geueral A. A. Humphreys. and com
m.ndsbe sen tinent of loyalty to his distinguished
chief seems to have been one of his strongest IN
ceptiyes to writing. He regards General Badsaus
aMilitary History" and General Grants Me-
moirs as substantially a gle work, the two De-
ing identical in subject matter, harmonious IN
STYLE and treatment, consistent IN mutual lncop-
ssteney, and united in intent" and his criticisms
are directed against both equally. Naturally Ten
eral Grants story of his campaigns, both tno
version which he actually wrote and the moro eau
crate narrative to which he was understood 10 e've
his sanction, wounded great many susceptioni,
tea and mt in circulation some of fact ana
some unjust judgments No history OF intricate
and extensive operations like the cau'paignsin
ouestion ever as or ever will be written "ithou'
such imperfections. Controversy VIII DO ousS WV.
Grant. Lee the Wilderness, SpottsyiVah'a, Noi"
Harbor long after We are dust; ana cons'ucii"s
how busy it is now and has been LOT moro IMAM
twenty years, Lieutenant-Colonei McCieiiah
that his object in the present publication
10 70 incte investigation into tue historic valuo
q, Censra Grants narrative Is not to DO read With
ant n smile. lie does not profess to have made an
.xha,stive criticism himself, and he touches only
upon certain matters which seem to have especially
enlisted his feelings. He complains that 6rant was
unfair to Meade, not SO much by MS comments
upon the character and services of that ofncer as
by re.iceuce and implication charge winch from
the nature OF things it is difficult either 10 suDstah
tate or to answer he accuses Grant OF denoeratey
withholding recognition from Genera. Humphreys
and Of unjusty exalting Sheridan; lie warmly
espouses the cause of General Warren, ana lie
n 10
in Virginia in number of more or less III portah'
details.
Now If General Grant is to be refuted by tine
record" it is important that the task shall DO
thoroughly DONE and first of all that We snali
know what the record is In the opinion OF Lieu
ant-Colonel Mcclellan IL is the narrative OF
sThe Virginia Campaign of 1864 ana 1920
written by General Humphreys for serionerS
3Campaigns Of the Civil War; an excellent ilttle
book, but certainly not final authority ana not
necessarily conclusive evidence where it contra
diets tbe General in Chief Yet Lcutenant-
Colonel Mcclellan says frankly in his Introduction
that be uses this work with very little other
reference. as embodying substantially the
established record" Large portions OF 1t are
quoted textuallv-pages at once; ana although
other authorities cited from time to tme' such
extraneous testimony adds very little 10 the suo
stance of the book. General Humphreys dld MS
work SO we'll that his ade-de-camp surely need not
have felt called upon to do it over. Lieutenant
Colonel McClellan's essay is ineffective partly
because be shows himself occasionally unreason-
able and too quick to suspect sights, but mainly
because he is not thorough. He points out dscrep-
ancies between Grant and his subordinates. and
instead of undertaking serious investigation to
discover where the truth lies he hopes that some
body else will burden himself with this the only
diiicult part of the task In other words, he has
written book in order to incte some one else to
write better one.